This comes up a lot, but sharing from the USMC. The Oaths, and their differences.

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:02:56 -0400

http://www.quantico.marines.mil/News/NewsArticleDisplay/tabid/10834/Article/611510/the-difference-between-oath-of-office-oath-of-enlistment.aspx

The difference between Oath of Office, Oath of Enlistment

Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson willingly disobeyed a commander’s orders and even threatened to open fire on American troops when he saved the lives of at least 10 Vietnamese civilians during the My Lai

Response by PO3 Michael James made Aug 10 at 2015 7:16 PM

PO3 Michael James — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:16:10 -0400

Sgt. Kennedy, I really don't see any difference.. an OATH (of an enlistment or of an office) is a commitment, a promise, its your name, its your word.. Wish our Politicians were as serious about the Oath of office, just as serious, as committed as our Marines, our Armed Forces are !! Being ordered to unnecessarily KILL 10 civilians ??? Morally, I believe in Warrant Officer Thompson actions.. Marine policy is to also defend the innocent, the little guy...

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Aug 10 at 2015 9:14 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 21:14:08 -0400

All leaders are empowered to disobey unlawful orders. Officers, in contrast, are charged by the oath to remain loyal solely to a document and to those demonstrating their loyalty to it. The silence on whose interpretation of that document is to be taken is pointed: we are charged to be come our own arbiters of right and wrong and charged with the protection of the foundational document of the republic.

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, Thanks for posting on this important topic, did you see my jawing about this on the other thread today?

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 10:51 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:51:17 -0400

In the situation WO Thompson was in, (hypothetical) had he ordered his Marines to fire on the civilians, how would his charges counter his unlawful order when the oath of enlistment states, "obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over" without being insubordinate?

Considering the Nuremberg Defense, just following orders, how would you defend the actions of those following the order to fire on civilians given the language in the Oath of Enlistment?